By Kristen Poppleton, Assistant Director

The legislative session is like a big funnel. It begins with a wide array of ideas, proposals, and interests. As time progresses, various factors such as public interest, political influence, and legislative scrutiny help narrow down these ideas into more focused and refined policies or laws. It’s a process of sifting through the multitude of possibilities to distill them into the most viable and impactful solutions.

This session kicked off with several opportunities to address our identified priority issues through the introduction of bills whose outcomes would significantly impact the water quality of trout streams. Significant bills we supported included:

• Providing $2 million in funding for Manure Management grants for small farms – those with fewer than 1,000 animal units- to better protect groundwater and reduce greenhouse gases.
• Requiring a mandatory environmental impact statement for the largest feedlots – those proposing operations with more than 10,000 animal units.
• Legislation that supported sustainable agriculture practices such as perennial cover crops
• Prohibiting the sale of seeds treated neonicotinoid pesticides for non-agricultural uses, helping to reduce exposure of people and wildlife to these pesticides.
• Requiring state agencies to report their nitrogen fertilizer purchases and identify strategies to reduce the amount of nitrogen fertilizer the state uses by 25% from the initial reported total.
• Clarifying that the existing definition of “public waters” controls, rather than error prone inventory maps from the early 1980s. In 2022 the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the statutory definition of public waters applied to protect a stream, not an old inventory map. It asked the Legislature to clarify things to prevent more lawsuits.

To move these priority issues along in the legislature we worked with partners and individual legislators to identify the best times for letters, testimony, media coverage, and days of action at the state capitol.

What passed, what didn’t, and why does it matter?

We were pleased with the response to our calls for action during this legislative session! Many thanks to those of you that attended our webinar on Preventing Fish Kills, submitted letters to your Representative and/or Senator and shared the opportunity to act on Instagram or Facebook. In part because of your advocacy, we were able to pass several important measures that will have a direct positive impact on our coldwater fisheries. While it is disappointing to see some important provisions dropped, we know that it can often take years of persistence to elevate an issue and garner the support needed on both sides of the aisle.

Feedlot Related Measures

The manure management grant program was included in the final bill but funded at a lower level than hoped.  $850,000 was appropriated to the Board of Water and Soil Resources for this grant program. The bill provision states that these dollars can be used as a match for federal funding. 

The manure management grant program is a significant opportunity to prevent fish kills in southeastern Minnesota. In fact, expanding manure storage was one of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s top recommendations in the Preventing fish kills in Minnesota’s driftless region report put out by the MPCA, MN Department of Agriculture, Health, and Natural Resources earlier this year. Feedlots with over 1,000 animal units require permits that mandate 9 months of manure storage, while those with less than 1,000 animal units have no manure storage requirements. Over 90% of the more than 2,600 feedlots in southeastern Minnesota have fewer than 1,000 animal units. This grant program will make it possible for smaller farms to develop manure management and storage systems in the part of our state with the most vulnerable groundwater areas.

Manure storage facilities are critical infrastructure as they give farmers the ability to store manure rather than applying it to fields when rain is imminent.  The application of excess manure on fields before heavy rainfall events is a major cause of fish kills. The state funds made available through this bill could be leveraged to apply for a federal match program.  The state agencies intend to apply through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) to effectively double the dollars available to assist small farmers.  These funds are available for other practices that contribute to climate change mitigation.

The requirement of a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement for all proposed feedlots of 10,000 animal units or more was dropped. The proposal to automatically require an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for every proposed feedlots of 10,000 animal units or more did become law.  However, existing law contains a mechanism for having an EIS ordered on a case-by-case basis.  Getting a discretionary EIS ordered (versus the automatic or “mandatory” EIS sought) takes vigilance by citizens and organizations.  The opportunity to comment and request a full-blown EIS typically comes as part of public comment on the lower level of review, and Environmental Assessment Worksheet.  MNTU will keep tabs on the EQB Monitor, which posts notice of all projects undergoing environmental review. 

Agricultural Runoff Related Measures

Requirement that state agencies report nitrogen fertilizer use and identify reduction strategies was included in the final bill.  The legislature established a goal to reduce the purchase of nitrogen fertilizer by the State of Minnesota by 25% between February 1, 2025, and January 1, 2030, while this fertilizer reduction only applies to state lands, it is a step forward in reducing nitrate pollution. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), more than 70% of nitrate pollution in Minnesota — 89% in southeastern Minnesota alone — is caused by commercial fertilizer and manure application. Nitrates can have significant impacts on our trout streams, reducing the size and potential survival of trout populations. Increased nitrates in streams can lead to decreased suitability of habitat, especially for spawning and nursery areas; stress on adult fish which can make them more susceptible to disease and impact their reproductive success; and have been shown to decrease the number of aquatic insects available as a trout food.

Provisions regarding neonicotinoid treated seeds were dropped. Opposition by agricultural lobbyists to any regulation of neonicotinoid remains strong.  Without legislation in place to prohibit the use of neonicotinoid coated seeds, it is up to us as consumers to be informed and “vote with our pocketbooks.” This legislation is sure to be reintroduced in the future, as the devastating impact of neonicotinoids on our insect populations has been and continues to be documented.

Public Waters

Clarification of Public Waters definition is included in the final bill.  However, it does not become effective for 3 years.  In addition, $1million per year was appropriated to the DNR to update the public waters inventory to address errors and omissions in the 1980s era list and maps.  The DNR has been foot dragging on this task since the buffer law was passed in 2016. Minnesota regulates lakes and streams based upon whether they are “public waters” or not.  The passage of the buffer law in 2016 drew attention to the public waters inventory and associated maps that DNR developed in the early 1980s.  Some waterways were overlooked at the time, many of which are small trout streams, and some procedural errors (notice to landowners) were made.  The DNR was to update the lists and maps but has done nothing.  Those who want to ditch streams oppose correcting the list/maps and have sued claiming regulators must ignore the definition in law and consider only the erroneous maps.  State courts have upheld the definition and asked the Legislature to clarify the definition, rather than the maps, controls so that costly lawsuits are avoided. 

The new law clarifies that the statutory definition dictates where it a waterway is classified, not just if it is included in the published inventory.  Importantly, it also includes $1million per year to the MNDNR for it to systematically update the list and maps county by county in the inventory.